Congress has a Shashi Tharoor problem it can no longer ignore

Indian Express

2 days ago

It was 1939. The Indian National Congress was about to elect its national president. The contenders? Subhas Chandra Bose and Pattabhi Sitaramayya. Despite Mahatma Gandhi's backing, Sitaramayya couldn't gather the numbers — he fell short by 203 votes — and Bose, for the second time, became the Congress President. Gandhi declared that it was his 'defeat'. Bose couldn't form the working committee. Sensing the differences with the topmost leadership (the word 'high command' was yet to enter the vocabulary of the grand old party), he stepped down and left the party forever.
Cut to 2025.
A lot has changed, both in political ethics as well as in temporal compulsions. In the last seven decades, Congress endured many splits; witnessed leadership crises, ideological tensions, dynastic supremacy, electoral decimation and partial revival. But one thing remained constant — the consequences of falling out with the high command were resignation or expulsion. If not anyone else, Shashi Tharoor, who is well-versed in history — not the WhatsApp-ed version — knows this well.
Tharoor's post-Pahalgam departure from the party line – both domestically and abroad — and Congress's increasing tolerance of such indiscipline, as evident also in the party's silence over Salman Khurshid's comments on abrogation of Article 370, signal a deeper malaise within the party.
As a part of the international delegation to the US, formed by the Indian government to convey the country's position on terrorism and Pakistan across the globe, Tharoor said that 'India breached the LoC (Line of Control)' for the first time during the 2016 surgical strike. He also lauded the government for the post-Pulwama strike in 2019. Notably, on both occasions, Congress had questioned the veracity of the attacks and sought sufficient evidence. Moreover, Tharoor's comments, the Congress leadership alleges, have negated the 'golden history' of Congress rule. 'In 1965, the Indian Army entered Pakistan at multiple points, which completely surprised the Pakistanis in the Lahore sector. In 1971, India tore Pakistan into two pieces, and during the UPA government, several surgical strikes were unleashed, but drumbeating was not done…', posted Congress spokesperson Udit Raj on X. This was later reposted by the Congress top brass, including Jairam Ramesh and Pawan Khera.
This is not the first time Tharoor has invoked the leadership's wrath. From his expression of interest in being a 'Swachh Bharat Abhiyan' brand ambassador to Kerala Congress's allegations that he has been writing 'love letters' to PM Modi, Tharoor has carved himself a special space as a dissenter. He was also one of the 'G-23' leaders who had questioned the high command in 2022. However, till Pahalgam, he walked a tightrope without crossing the party line.
Any decision by Congress about his fate would depend on many factors, including the 2026 Kerala assembly elections. But for now, the party's indecisiveness over Tharoor has put it in a spot. It can neither swallow the bitter pills, nor can it afford to throw it up. Congress must remember that it has seen worse, and on every occasion, after a hiatus of a few years — sometimes less than a year — it has got back on track.
In an old party like Congress, ideological objectives are not static; they are temporal and strategic, and hence, intra-party dissent is a natural outcome. But crossing the 'party line' on certain issues — where there is no room for confusion — has historically not been accepted in Congress, or for that matter, in any political party since the formation of the political party system.
In 1950, senior Congress leader Purushottam Das Tandon became the Congress President in the Nashik session, defeating one of the tallest political figures of that time: J B Kripalani. However, due to his differences with Prime Minister Nehru, he had to step down. The party knew that without Nehru's popularity, they would not be able to win the 1952 general elections. The 1980s witnessed tension between the then-PM Rajiv Gandhi and his finance minister — later defence minister — V P Singh. Gandhi was not happy with Singh ordering raids on the premises of businessmen who were reportedly close to him. The tension reached its peak when Singh's name came up in an alleged defence scam, and he was asked to resign from the cabinet; following this, he left the party, only to become the Prime Minister within two years.
Similarly, the 1990s were the decade of Sharad Pawar's disgruntlement. From him sulking over not being made the PM in 1991 to his endorsement of the BJP's 'foreigner' jibe against Sonia Gandhi, Pawar had crossed all the 'lines'. Although Saheb (as Pawar is referred to) thought that he was representing the sentiment of the country through his support for the BJP's narratives — quite similar to today's Tharoor or Khurshid — he was expelled. This parting of ways cost Congress a lot, especially in Pawar's home ground, Maharashtra, but the party didn't compromise on its 'line'.
Tharoor is no Singh or Pawar. But his all-weather ebullience, sophistication, lustrous hair, and sometimes incomprehensible English have made him a darling of the elite upper-middle-class Indians. One needs to acknowledge that Tharoor represents everything that the BJP stands against. The BJP's crusade against elitist English-speaking, mostly foreign-educated, critical intellectuals, labelled as 'Khan market gang', would not give him enough space to fit in.
There is a way to put forward the views of the party without echoing the ruling party's narratives. Learning from DMK MP Kanimozhi's response in Spain – when she was asked what India's national language is, she said, 'unity in diversity' – could be a good starting point. Unity is not always about unanimity. Diverse views, put together in a united manner, don't weaken democracy; rather, they uphold its inherent strength. Tharoor and Khurshid represent what is fundamentally wrong with Congress. Sometimes, tough decisions need to be taken to safeguard the sanctity of the 'line', without tampering with intra-party democracy.
[e-mail]